The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant brought about the power of attorney he prepared (hereinafter “the power of attorney of this case”) to view another person, not theft.

In addition, since the power of attorney of this case has not been completed, it cannot be the object of larceny.

2) Since the Defendant again read the power of attorney in this case and then sought to refuse to draw up the power of attorney in this case, there was no intention of illegal acquisition.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of larceny is established when the crime of larceny is committed.

Here, theft is not required separately to exclude the possession of the property possessed by another person against the will of the possessor, and to transfer it to his or her own possession or a third party, and it is not required that it should be done closely without others' possession.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant brought the letter of delegation of this case on the books of the victim such as the victim and the F, and it is only recognized that the defendant was immediately dismissed to F, etc.

In other words, from the beginning, the defendant does not take the power of attorney in this case as he has been reported to the victim or F, etc.

B) Property which is an object of larceny does not necessarily need to have an objective set of exchange values, and it is sufficient that the owner or possessor has a subjective value. In this case, the existence of a subjective or economic value is not used by others.

In a passive relationship, even if its value is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5183, Oct. 28, 2004). According to the records, the defendant's power of attorney in this case shall be the defendant.